Jessica Pilz was second last out and passed comfortably Jain Kim's highpoint. She reached the third last hold with 2.00 min left but looked shaky setting up for the last double dyno which she barely hold and the crowd including her coach just went crazy as she clipped with 1.33 left. (c) IFSC live-streaming.

All the pressure on Janja and she climbed fast, being some seconds ahead of Janja and reached the third last hold with 2.15 min remaining. The clock kept ticking but she could not find a good enough sequence hesitating some 25 seconds before she did the second last move and the double dyno with ease but ten seconds late.

The excitement was at it's epicentrum and neither the commentators or Jessica or Janja did knew who won. Then we could see that Janja was informed she was second and in another 30 seconds it was official. Jessica Pilz is the 2018 World Champion and in just another minute, she was interview live. Complete results

I agree with Bojan. Specially because Jessica Pilz, however amazing she performed in semi's and finals, did not top either of the qualifying routes. Ok, perhaps they were harder in her starting group.

It's a pity as now the winner of the lead WCH, the most important event in competition climbing, is determined based on a factor that is NOT relevant to lead climbing at all. Perhaps comparable to WCH finals in football being determined based on penalties after extension...

Just out of curiosity, anybody know whether if Jessica and Janja would have been in the same starting group, the count-back would have included the qualifications?

Janja and Jessica put on a tremendous show. They are light years ahead of the other climbers.

I do believe the IFSC should fire the routesetters though. They are the ones who set the stage for the finals debacle, by making a semis route that was way too easy: ten finalists with four tied for the lead.

And according to announcer Charlie, this wasn't accidental. The setters expected to see some tops (plural) in semis.

What possibly are they thinking? The whole point is to create separation. Instead, they created the bizarre situation where the only climber to top all four routes did not win. (No one else topped more than two.)

Probably pointless, but I strongly urge IFSC to come up with a different way to break ties. Also to find some better routesetters.

The swing of the dyno was stopped by a tight rope. A clear example of a incident resulting in an advantage to the climber. Technically her attempt should have been stopped and she would have been given a second go.

She probably would have stopped the swing herself, but that's something we will never know...

As for the speed climbing aspects. the solution is simply: stop aiming for a single top in the final and add a few ultra hard moves at the end. But that is policy of the IFSC not the decission of the routesetter.

Herman, if you think Janja should have been given a second go at the finals, she would have won almost for sure. She'd know all the moves. She'd know how much time she needed to finish. Assuming she got a reasonable rest, I bet she'd tear right through the route.

Terrible camera work, both in semi's and the final.
Miss so much vital climbing!

Nice that Jessica won. Just sad she wasn't allowed to prove it, due to the route being too easy for the top climbers. This will be a hard loss to swallow for Janja.
But maybe it will fire her up even more, so in the future she will be even better.
And now Jessica has proved once again she can spar with Janja, so she will be even more hungry and she will be even better! Hopefully the route setters can adapt to Janja- and Jessica-version 2...

I do think IFSC should start presenting the time automatically so it will be more obvious for the spectators and commentators who won. In fact, I think IFSC could present split times so we could understand who is in the lead, climbing faster.

IMO, constantly showing time onscreen will be annoying. Esp. for the non-climbers it'd give the wrong impression what's lead climbing about.

IFSC and the setters should do everything to split the ties by 'higher, not faster', e.g. by:
(1) setting harder routes, with increasing difficulty nearing the top (there's no big problem, if no one reaches the top), not only in finals, but also semis and qualis
(2) making sure all rounds count for countback. One option to do this is to make two quali groups not as it is now but one stronger (by world ranking) and one 'weeker' (lower rank or unranked) and then allowing e.g. climbers on ranks #21 to #26 from the stronger group a second chance in a weaker group's route.
(3) superfinal, which would rarely be needed if you implement above suggestions.

Note (2) will solve, at least for the qualis, the 'stupid' mistakes, such as touching the bolts or banners. I'd like were much to see the best climbers in the final today. We missed Romain and we almost missed Adam...

@Whistleblower, by the actual rules, qualis would not split the tie between Janja and Jessica, even if they competed in the same quali group.

Setters have a really impossible job. On one hand they need to separate climbers, on the other, they need to give TOPs to the public. You can't do both at the same time with any consistency. It'd be a lot easier for them if they could set for separation only, but then there is no topout celebration and the show suffers.

Despite the slightly sour ending for Janja and her fans (me included), the event was entertaining as hell and great to watch.

"I'm really glad for the second place, but also a bit disappointed. I do not think that any competitor in difficulty should be classified by time, regardless of the rank. I'm happy that I climbed all the way to the top and proved that I know how to climb under pressure. I knew that Jessica had topped the route, I knew that time would be decisive, but it was a little sad that it was all about few seconds. The semi-finals were too easy, we saw four tops and no climbers could show which one is better"

Marco Scolaris once said "Our values and our disciplines of Speed, Lead and Boulder would be a great fit in the Summer Olympic Program and perfectly embody the Olympic motto "Citius (Faster)-Altius (Higher)-Fortius (stronger)."
Hm, it seems he and his federation are heading in direction of Citius-Citius-Fortius...

@Bojan: I am totally with you and would add just one thing: when this stupid rule of giving the place (1st in this case) on time, the climber coming afterwards (Janja in this case) should have the indication of time missing to the top, at least for the show and for the benefit of the fact of not climbing blind + not being penalised when starting last also because you have deserved this spot being the best since then...

It is not so impossible, Jakob.. IFSC should do as Bojan suggests: separating climbers based on difficulty is paramount so do it in the qualifications if they think that tops in the finals are necessary for the show.
and if climbers would be divided into groups as Bojan suggests then the best ones would climb the same (very difficult or better yet impossible) route in the qualifications and so we would have a separation based on difficulty and there would be no sour taste even with ties in the finals.

@Rai: note it's not clear having info about the top or time is an advantage or disadvantage. You may consider Janja has an advantage of knowing the fact Jessica topped but this may cause an extra pressure for her knowing she should climb fast and knowing the route is doable and she should avoid any risky moves (which in turn takes more time!). If he knew Jessica's time or how much time she has left to beat her time (you mean that by "he indication of time missing to the top", right?), that may be considered as additional pressure and a cause for the mistake...
On the other hand, if you believe info about (someone else's) time is beneficial, then someone can argue this is an unfair advantage for Janja...

So, I don't think there is a solution in (showing) time in lead climbing.

I feel sorry for all the athletes who trained for this charade :(
the logic that having to have tops to please the spectators.. with this logic you have to make football goals larger to have more goals.
Or likewise in case of a draw you award the win to the team who scored the first goal because they scored faster..
Everything about competition climbing as a sport right now is so superficial and stupid, and it is a shame because the level and commitment of the athletes is amazing and they don't deserve this.
getting disqualified because you touch a stupid missplaced sponsorship logo, that really sums it up
i personally boycott this stupidity until the ifsc get their act together.
and no disrespect to Jessy Pilz, she is amazing, but can she really be happy about this title?
rant over and out

ps and possible silver lining: Janja really crushes about everything she tries, she is on another planet.. why not try more rock climbing? my estimate would be that she could climb 8C and 9b pretty soon if she would commit

the solution is so simple. Just make a gradual but superhard semi-final with (let s say 9a for the woman ). Then you can mak a final-route that is toppable and the winner is decided on count back from the semis.

AND drop the 6-min rule offcousre, this is LEAD climbing where finding restpositions and recuperation is part of the game.

NObody has ever climbed a 9c route without kneebarring for minutes....

Herman i agree this would be far better than the current system, but the problem is it would make the semifinal the final... not ideal. Why not make a superhard badass route in the final, you have tops rarely but if you have one, it is something truly special.
But i guess that would be unacceptable for non-climbing spectators, and surely they are the most important to consider!

A final is a FINAL. Do they use countback in f.ex. track and field? No. Countback is as stupid as deciding by time. The final is a seperate competition and should be treated like that. With limited TV-time the only way to do this properly is to make a "8c+-ish" final for the women but again on a 15m wall that is really hard without spoiling the climbs of the lesser skilled climbers. I point out once again, countback is stupid and even more anticlimax than deciding by time. I hope we could go back to the "superfinal"-times as that is a fantastic way to decide the winner. Maybe TV-times in future could allow that?

I have to mention too that imo Jessica deserves the win for sure. Apart from the topdyno she climbed better than Janja and I feel sad her win is overshadowed by this speculation. Give credit to her fantastic performance.

As can be seen on the male semifinal, it is very hard to separate the climbers. If they are not tied on the top they just might be tied further down. The route setters have a very delicate and hard work and it is amazing how often they are spot on. I guess, the tie problem will just increase as the gap in between the Top-20 is reduced every year.

Returning to 8 minutes in semis and 8 or 10 in finals with longer routes would give us back the LEAD and finish this "on rope boulder" stupidity.
The IFSC "experts"on the other side hope to force us to like time in sport climbing (no way) or they are too stupid to realize what is going on.

Why do not admit that Janja was inferior in final and because of that she climbed slower, especially in last part?
She hesitated so much on that last technical part, while she usually flies over holds.
Jessica on the contrary climbed so much better there and sticked the moves immediately and that's why she finished faster, even if she is a slower climber overall.
It could also be that she was more tired and that's why she decided to go for it immediately, but in the end it looked better.
Also polemics about Jessica swing are really surprising: to me it just looks like rope drag. Janja also had similar drag when pulling the rope for the last anchor.
About the semi-finals, ok it could be that the setters misjudged the difficulty a little bit, but those are grades: subjective and erroneous.

The camera angle was so much different, also in replays... How can you say that Janja's swing was great while Jessica's was stopped? To me it is absolutely not clear. Also have a look at the bad angle of the second last quickdraw... That angle could have made all the drag by itself... IMHO you are seeing polemics where there shouldn't be any

The statement "Jessica climbed better" is ridiculous. No, she climbed *faster*.
So, she is the legitimate winner by the rule. No one is questioning that.
And no one is saying Janja was better or deserved to win. We simply don't know.
We are only saying climbers deserve a fair fight. A fair fight in lead climbing should mean fight for who can reach higher, not a fight against the stopwatch.

@Bojan
What you are saying is ridiculous too: you need an infinite long wall to be 100% sure that they have a fair fight. Since in my world climbing walls cannot be infinite, then time is there JUST as a compromise. I'm sure that setters struggle to try to avoid that, both in semifinal and in final. But sometimes it just happens and you have to deal with that in some way. The rule is there just to give a unique winner.
If you have another solution that would give a unique winner with 100% probability, please let us know.

@Jens
Maybe bad was not the proper word.. I meant that the angle the rope gets going into the second last quickdraw is quite high. If you consider that the route was pretty tortuous and also high, you get quite higher rope drag compared to usual situations in indoor climbing. So it could have just been drag by the rope itself, not by the belayer.

Sure it was rope drag that stopped Jessica's swing but the strange thing is that Janja's swing was much bigger. My best guess is that the belayer in Jessica's case did stand longer out from the wall in comparison to Janja's belayer. Possibly also that there was more slack given for Janja. In the future, it might be that IFSC should state how much slack and where the belayers should stand. I do not think anybody did anything wrong but it is obvious that they had different rope drag during the swing.

(1) Getting at least a top in the final is highly desirable. The climax that it raises into spectators (and climbers as well) when approaching and reaching the final hold is undeniable. The male final for example gave a much lower entertainment because it was very hard (or conditions were worse, maybe) and climbers failed lower down.
I agree with you that the semifinals should have been harder. But that's it: route setters misjudged the difficulty, or maybe conditions got better, or whatever. It just happens sometime and blaming the setters is pointless.

(2) This is not fair at all. In any sport stronger athletes are always equally divided in qualification runs, or are separated in runs by coin toss.

(3) This one is flawed too: the recovery time between the two athletes that reached the top can greatly vary. For example if the first and the last climbers both top the route, then the first climber would get much more rest before the superfinal (which I assume is done immediately after the final, otherwise it has no practical sense).

@Rai: quite possible. But if climbers starting later know the time of those starting before, but not vice versa, this may be an unfair disadvantage for the former.

@Paolo: (1) You may think several tops with time as a splitter is better than no tops, I don't want to argue with that. But top as a climax is a climax only if there is only one -- the world champion -- on the top. Which is very hard to achieve and you better not risk for that situation, at least if you don't want to see a 'speed' champ (it seems you have no problem on that?). It also seems you haven't watched the semis: no, the setters haven't misjudged the difficulty, they *intentionally* set easy route and expect several tops even before the semi started.
(2) I hardly see any unfairness here. Every sport has a qualification system and indeed, you could not avoid some unfairness (e.g. only two Japanese at the Olympic games). But my suggestions (different groups, pre-qualifications, repechage etc.) is nothing special. In this particular case, it is more fair for the better half (~50 top ranked competitors), but it still gives a fair chance to qualify to the semis for the weaker group.
(3) as I said, in most cases superfinal is avoidable if you follow above suggestions. But even if it happens, recovery time can be 'controlled' somehow. In this particular case I see no problem on that: after a break to set the superfinal route, Jessica would start first and Janja second, so the resting time would be the same.

Tough crowd to please.
Isolated the final setting was perfect, aesthetic, with a perfect split before Janya came out. If anything, you would have to blame the previous rounds for being to easy.
Janya is already World Champion and has all right to be disappointed. It will probably just add to her legendary status.
Congratulations to Jessica Pilz for her crown and to Kim Jain, another legend of the sport.
Together with all the other athletes, the way you all made it memorable.
You will hardly find better sportsmanship anywhere.

@Bojan
(1) I indeed think that 1 top is better than none, and 2 tops are still acceptable, since you can't be really sure about conditions, shape of the athletes, etc.
Ideally in final I would like to have 35% 1 top, 40% no tops, 20% 2 tops, 5% >2 tops
And try to avoid as much as possible ties in semifinal with harder route with no bouldery sections towards the end and increasing difficulty.
(2) We have different concept of fairness, maybe :) "it is more fair for the better half" means that it is unfair.
(3) I agree, but it will get a bit time consuming. One thing that they could do is re-climb the route again and again, until someone will fall at previous hold than the other